Carbon capture and storage a factor in reducing emissions
Government policy instruments could reduce barriers to implementing carbon capture and storage (CCS) to reduce emissions, especially when it comes to retrofitting existing fossil fuel infrastructure.
A note from the Global CCS Institute published in response to the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change published on April 4 designated financial instruments such as certification and exchange of emissions, legally enforced emissions restrictions and carbon pricing as an aid to CCS implementation.
The IPCC report in its summary for policymakers named CSS as an option to help reduce emissions by retrofitting existing structures with CSS, as well as a reduction in fossil fuel use, a switch to low-carbon fuels, and the cancellation of new installations coal.
The Global CCS Institute claimed an “unfair comparison” between the rapid adoption of low-carbon technologies such as solar and wind power and the comparatively slower adoption of CSS technologies.
“From a purely economic point of view, wind and solar power produce a precious commodity: electricity. Instead, CCS avoids the damage caused by the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, and unless there is a monetary value associated with this action, there will be inherent economic and deployment limitations” , indicates the memoir.
In response, the Global CSS institute pointed to the US proposal to offer nationwide tax credits for carbon dioxide capture projects and, in Canada, benefits for low-emission fuel standards. of carbon as examples of incentive policies.
The IPCC Summary for Policy Makers mentions that the use of CCS could mean that fossil fuels are used longer, thereby reducing ‘stuck’ fossil fuel infrastructure.
The Ministry of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources has identified CCS as a “priority low-emission technology‘ as part of its technology investment roadmap.
A commercial CCS project by Gorgon in Western Australia has been criticized as a ‘scam’, allowing fossil fuel companies to profit without cutting emissions, as reported in Crikey Last year.
Fossil fuel subsidies a sore spot for OECD and IEA climate change hopes